companies_enrich

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses automatic provider routing, the return payload components (outcome, normalized output, raw provider data, _meta.tried), and that provider API charges are billed to the provider account. The typo and lack of failure/rate-limit details keep it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the sentence 'treg picks the provider and names the one that served Use vendor to pin a provider' is a run-on with missing punctuation and an unclear subject, forcing the agent to parse around the typo.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema covers return values, and the description covers routing and billing. However, with 8 optional parameters and no required field, the description never states that at least one identifier (domain, name, email, LinkedIn URL, etc.) must be provided, which is critical for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'Use vendor to pin a provider' is redundant with the vendor parameter's schema text, and it doesn't clarify combinations or any minimum identifier requirement.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific operation ('Enrich a company') and lists several accepted identifier inputs (domain, name, LinkedIn URL, work email), which distinguishes it from companies_search. However, the phrase 'treg picks the provider and names the one that served Use vendor to pin a provider' is typo-laden and confusing, and it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling enrichment tools like people_enrich.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The only directive is 'Use vendor to pin a provider,' which is about parameter choice, not about when to choose this tool over companies_search or people_enrich. An agent is left to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and 'enrich' wording.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.